Singer Sewing Machine Help | ||
| Lamplover78's loves21 of 1156 |  |  |
shareurpassion loves this.
vetraio50 loves this.
RichmondLori loves this.
jscott0363 loves this.
Lamplover78 loves this.
officialfuel loves this.
kwqd loves this.
Jade42 loves this.
fortapache loves this.
dav2no1 loves this.Create a Show & TellReport as inappropriate
Posted 4 years ago
BKooi
(2 items)
I'm trying to figure out any information on this singer sewing machine that I'm trying to restore. Any information would be helpful. I haven't been able to find an exact match and am wondering what parts I might be missing. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you.
Create an account or login in order to post a comment.
Hi, BKooi. :-)
It's an unusual Singer. Just for starters, the serial number (W67765) is unusual.
Per the Singer information at the International Sewing Machine Collectors' Society (ISMACS), the "W" serial numbers were all made at the Bridgeport factory (scroll down):
http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/singer_dating_by_serial_number.html
There is a clue in this profile of the Bridgeport factory:
*snip*
In 1856 the Wheeler and Wilson Manufacturing Co. moved its sewing machine factory from Waterbury, Connecticut to a larger site in Bridgeport.
During the 1850’s and 1860’s the sales of Wheeler and Wilson machines increased steadily and the factory underwent several expansions, until by the mid-1880’s it occupied over 7 acres. The site included a foundry, a main building for metal working and assembly, a woodworking building for cabinets and cases, and a specialist needle factory.
Sales peaked in the the early 1870’s with production of around 128,000 machines a year, but after that it entered into a period of gradual decline as its main competitor Singer, became dominant in the market. Wilson retired from the business in 1863 and Wheeler died in 1893. Finally in 1905 the company was sold to its old rival Singer.
For a while after the takeover, the factory continued to make the old Wheeler & Wilson models, but with the Singer name on. After an initial period of integration, the factory speciali[z]ed mainly in the production of Singer’s Industrial models.
*snip*
https://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/bridgeport
Your machine does look similar to the Wheeler and Wilson model D9:
https://ismacs.net/wheelerandwilson/wheeler-wilson-d9-sewing-machine.html
More about the W&W D9:
https://vintagesewingmachinesblog.wordpress.com/2018/06/10/the-d9-and-its-incarnations/
Whoops, I got distracted. ISMACS doesn't have any W&W manuals except for the W&W No. 8:
http://ismacs.net/wheelerandwilson/manuals/wheeler-and-wilson-number-8-manual.pdf
Sewmuse, however, has one for something called the "No. 9" that looks more promising:
http://www.sewmuse.co.uk/Wheeler%20&%20Wilson%20No%209%20Manual.pdf
Your cabinet looks pretty much like the Singer Cabinet Table No. 2:
https://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/cabinet_table_no_2-3.html
That is very helpful. Thank you very much!
BKooi, You're welcome. :-)
I decided to look into this further, because I was troubled by the difference in the thread spool placement between your machine and the W&W D9.
Here is the Singer 9W7 (Singer renamed the W&W D9 to 9W):
http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/model-list/images0-99/9w7.jpg
Scroll down to read the few bits of information about the 9W7:
http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/model-list/classes-1-99.html
Singersewinginfo dot co dot UK has a write-up on the Singer 9W (it also has pictures):
https://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/9w
Needlebar dot org has some Singer 9W information (it can be difficult to navigate needlebar, as it's an inactive website):
http://needlebar.org/nbwiki/index.php/Singer_9W
A manual for the Singer 9W:
http://needlebar.org/main/manuals/singer9w/index.html
http://needlebar.org/main/manuals/singer9w/index2.html
And the vintage sewing machine enthusiasts at quilting board dot com (they are very knowledgeable) talk about the differences between the W&W D, the Singer 9W, and the Singer 9W7 (they have pictures):
https://www.quiltingboard.com/vintage-antique-machine-enthusiasts-f22/differences-between-w-w-d9-singer-9w-t68739.html
They even have a contact interface if you have questions:
https://www.quiltingboard.com/sendmessage.php
BKooi, It really does look as though your machine is a Singer 9W7, and the only obvious thing missing seems to be the bobbin winder.
Where you could get a replacement, I don't know. The likeliest source would be another Singer 9W7 that has one and is available for cannibalization.
This group seem to have a lot of information about the W&W D9 and the Singer 9W7:
https://groups.io/g/Wheeler_and_Wilson-Sewing-Machines/topic/3289580
It looks like this outfit on eBay might have a compatible bobbin winder (it's actually a W&W D9):
*snip*
Serial Number 3202398 Dates this machine as manufactured in 1879, however, the bed plate has a patent date of 1892. This is not the only 1879 Singer 9W7 that I have seen with a Pat. 1992 bed plate on it. Either the original bedplate was widely replaced with this newer one, or the database year of manufacture is in error. This is actually a Wheeler & Wilson machine, built after Singer bought that company out and continued its production for a number of years.
*snip*
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1879-Singer-Sewing-Machine-Model-9W7-Choose-Your-Parts-Free-Ship-Over-25-/153346799235
Per that picture labeled "Singer 9W7 Outside Parts , the bobbin winder looks like it would be part number "4692."
Wow. You have been a great help! I have the bobbin winder coming in the mail!
BKooi, You are very welcome. :-)
Could you do the CW S&T forum a small return favor, though? I'm actually guilty of forgetting to ask people to do this. Could you mark this post "MYSTERY SOLVED?" (We have a veritable bone yard of "UNSOLVED MYSTERIES" here. Some of them are bonafide unsolved mysteries, but some are solved ones that never got marked as such.)
Will do.
Thanks! :-)
BKooi, I don't know whether you're still monitoring this post, but I thought I'd give you one last page of Wheeler &Wilson D9/Singer 9W information from the inactive Needlebar dot org website:
http://www.needlebar.org/main/survresults/singer9w/index.html
Love all this information!
It is interesting that my serial number is way earlier than any other reported w9, but looks just like it. "The first reliably reported instance of the use of the Celtic decals is with the first number reported in the three million range, 3100497, and thereafter all machines but one report that decal (see dating section for details of that machine)." My serial number is 67765.
New Mystery- How does my machine have the serial number 67765 when "the first relaibly reported instance of the use of the Celtic decals is with the first number reported in the three million range, 3100487?"
BKooi, Yeah, I read that needlebar survey page about ten times trying to make sense of the serial number scheme. It was making my head hurt.
Here's a website that has some W&W serial numbers and a timeline (I notice that it references the 1968 edition of Grace Rogers Cooper's book about sewing machines):
https://www.fiddlebase.com/american-machines/wheeler-wilson/dating-wheeler-wilson/
Unfortunately, W&W seems to have initiated a new sequence of serial numbers in 1876, and there are no records of those later ones. >8-0
Back to that needlebar survey page: I put the needlebar survey parts in quotes, and my comments thereon in brackets:
"Machines with a serial number of 3,160,000 and above are presumed to be 9W1s, with the featherweight type bobbin."
[Could these prefix-less seven digit numbers be some of the mysterious Wheeler & Wilson numbers after 1876? Insofar as I know, after 1900 all Singer serial numbers had prefixes.]
"Machines with lower serial numbers are presumed to be 9W7s with the solid or later W&W 9 type bobbin."
[I suspect that the "lower serial numbers" referenced here might be the ones with the "W" prefix.]
"As to when the W-prefixed machines may have been manufactured, Chrys Gunther kindly provided evidence of a W2,000 numbered industrial machine which appears in a 1913 industrial manual. The few W-prefixed 5 digit serial numbers reported on 9Ws were in the 70,000 range, along with one unverifiable report in the 50,000 range."
[They didn't know about your machine back when they did this survey. Needlebar dot org is inactive.]
"I think it at least likely that the line drawing was produced a year or more earlier than the manual date and I don’t think it too unlikely that Singer manufactured 70,000 industrial machines overall in a space of just a year or two. All I can conclude is that the W prefixed 9Ws are clearly at the latter end of the production range wherever that is ultimately decided to be!"
[What I get: Singer made at least 70,000 sewing machines at the Bridgeport factory, most of them industrial models, but a small number of them were domestic models that had W&W origins. Of course, that doesn't necessarily explain that "W 1,500,000 1954" information at ISMACS.]
*snip*
http://www.needlebar.org/main/survresults/singer9w/index.html
I suspect all of this might also have been confusing for that eBay purveyor of parts.
I saw a preview of that listing fairly early on in my search results, but dismissed it, because it had "1879" in its title, which seemed impertinent to your machine. It was only once went to the link and saw the pictures that I said, "Oh, that is so right!"
I wonder if the eBay vendor was using Singer's table of prefix-less serial numbers. Using that, serial number "3202398" would have fit into this range:
*snip*
2,925,000 3,679,999 1879
*snip*
http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/serial-numbers/singer-no-prefix-serial-numbers.html
But that would be wrong, because Singer hadn't taken over W&W until after the turn of the century.
Clear as mud? We aim to serve. Mud pie, that is. };-)
Honestly, I really don't quite know what to make of the W&W D9/Singer 9W serial numbers. Perhaps the experts at ISMACS were wise when they published this:
*snip*
9W7 1909-13
*snip*
http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/model-list/classes-1-99.html
Before I forget: do you need a replacement belt for your machine?
If so, that's a problem that's easily solved. They are widely available, even on Amazon, but I don't know about the quality there. This outfit seems reputable:
https://www.vintagesingerparts.com/products/treadle-sewing-machine-leather-belt-3-16-x-72-grade-a
If you need some advice in fitting a replacement belt, Mel is an expert:
https://www.quiltingroomwithmel.com/2017/03/replacing-treadle-sewing-machine-belts.html
No wonder this was such a circus. It turns out that PT Barnum was involved in the development of the area in Bridgeport, CT that housed the Wheeler & Wilson sewing machine factory (and later, the Singer factory):
http://wikimapia.org/32447173/Singer-Sewing-Machine
Judging from both the satellite and street views, it looks as though the factory building has survived, and been re-purposed. Notice the adjacent railroad tracks. That's always handy when you're making cast-iron products:
480 Barnum Ave, Bridgeport, CT 06608
https://goo.gl/maps/7stsidLb7o3xwHB96
540 Barnum Ave, Bridgeport, CT 06608
https://goo.gl/maps/ne4N6A8GW53JrFa17
It occurs to me that I'd better provide a bit of explanation about needlebar dot org:
If you go to the domain name:
http://www.needlebar.org/
You'll see a rather plain page with a handful of links. If you select "NeedleBar Main Site," you'll be directed here:
http://needlebar.org/nbwiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
Where you'll see a brief explanation of needlebar dot org's origins and purpose.
If you select "Original NeedleBar Site Archive," you'll see a slightly different version of that same information.
The "Picture Library Archive," and "NeedleBar Forums Archive" picks are defunct.
If you should happen on a page associated with needlebar dot org via a search engine (the way I originally did), the links found on any particular page may or may not work. That's probably because the site isn't really actively maintained any longer.
There is still a lot of valuable information to be gleaned from the site, but it can take patience and persistence.
Again, thanks for all of your help. I already ordered a belt, but if it doesn't work out I'll try your suggestion. You have been super informative and a wonderful resource!
You're welcome. I'm not really a vintage sewing machine expert; I'm just an old Internet surfer. };-)
It's been intriguing if ultimately a bit frustrating (because of the lack of a clear answer on the serial numbers question) for me to research these Wheeler & Wilson ancestry Singer sewing machines.
I do have an ever-growing collection of vintage sewing machine links that you might find helpful (I see that I need to update it again):
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/stories/285089-vintage-sewing-machine-help
Once you get your Singer 9W7 restored, you will be an expert. :-)
BKooi, I was just noodling around for more W&W/Singer serial number information, and noticed a very interesting comment from quiltingboard dot com member Charlee.
Back in 2012, they corresponded with ISMACS member John Langdon on the subject of the Wheeler & Wilson D9/Singer 9W, and Langdon's views on the history of the serial numbers seem to agree with my instincts (or rather, my instincts agree with Langdon's 2012 opinion):
*snip*
Singer was great about keeping records (mostly) and, even with the 'missing' information for some of its earlier models, it puts the other manufacturers to shame. W&W were not so good. Then, of course, Singer renumbered Bridgeport machines and effectively went back to 0 but with a 'W' in front.
So, there is a huge grey area around the D–9 and 9w. No-one really knows just when (in the sequence of serial numbers) Singer took over.
*snip*
https://www.quiltingboard.com/vintage-antique-machine-enthusiasts-f22/wheeler-wilson9-singer-9w-serials-t186338.html
You'll probably want to read the whole excerpt (indeed, the entire thread).
Langdon never seemed to follow through in creating a 'database' of 9W serial numbers. Probably he had too many other irons in the fire, and the project just fell by the wayside.
Subsequent pages of that quiltingboard dot com thread have other users supplying serial numbers of their W&W D9/Singer 9W machines.
I think I'll be updating my vintage sewing machine help post to make it clear that (1) Singer 9W machines can have either a prefix-less or a "W" prefix serial number (2) the ones with the "W" prefix serial numbers are newer (3) people should not try to use Singer's prefix-less serial number table to date a 9W.
I read it again, and I don't think Langdon ever did try to create a list of Singer 9W serial numbers; he was too busy.
Hmmm, 1908 was an interesting year.
Look at images 12 and 13 of this digital copy of a Singer publication at Smithsonian (dated September 1, 1908).
Image 12 is labeled a 9w1, but it has W&W decals, and the center-mounted thread spool spindle:
https://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/Trade-Literature/Sewing-Machines/NMAHTEX/2752/imagepages/image12.htm
Image 13 is labeled a 9W7, has Singer decals, and the thread spool spindle is next to the balance wheel:
https://www.sil.si.edu/DigitalCollections/Trade-Literature/Sewing-Machines/NMAHTEX/2752/imagepages/image13.htm
BKooi, if you get into a jam restoring your Singer 9w, the website stillstitching dot com seems like it would be an excellent resource:
I can't link directly to the pertinent section, but if you scroll down to where it reads "Epilogue," they completely disassembled a Wheeler &Wilson No. 9, and a Singer 9w:
https://www.stillstitching.com/2018/11/wheeler-wilson-marketing-powerhouse.html
They have pictures, and the one of the completely disassembled W&W No. 9 is great:
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FPc-alGNbA0/W_rtYbkYgeI/AAAAAAAAFEo/753N8SvCIzc4PrDBdLKC7D2MFewKiHb2wCLcBGAs/s1600/Parts%2BSpread%2B1000px.JPG
Unfortunately, they didn't do the complete layout with the disassembled Singer 9W:
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-91T_E0k9wuA/W_rt3MLrZQI/AAAAAAAAFE0/E9jAoDNzSMcyYbantRrkRYdwz4vSjunvQCEwYBhgL/s1600/20160301_213932.jpg
Anyway, here is their contact interface:
https://www.stillstitching.com/p/contact.html
Wow. Thanks again. This information is gold.
BKooi, I decided to go hunting for Singer 9Ws, and so far have found over a dozen, five of which have the "W" prefix serial numbers:
W22105
W23454
W25543
W45511
W56102
I also found this interesting tidbit:
*snip*
The best I have been able to determine is that all W&W D-9s will have a 7-digit serial number which will be between 2,200,000 & 3,000,000. If the 7-digit number begins with a 3 it will have been built by Singer.
*snip*
https://groups.io/g/Wheeler_and_Wilson-Sewing-Machines/message/3638
Some vintage sewing machines have opined that the "W" prefix serial numbers are older than the prefix-less seven digit ones, but to me, that seem backwards.
I agree with Langdon that it's the other way around. Moreover, the prefix-less serial numbers might belong to that mysterious group of later and lost W&W serial numbers.
The other thing I've gleaned is that some of the early Singer 9Ws still used the donut-shaped bobbin, but later ones used the more Singer-standard flat-sided ones, and so I think yours will fall into that latter category.
BKooi, You're welcome. I was in a bit of a hurry when I commented earlier, and didn't even notice that you'd snuck in there just before me. :-)
Yeah, I thought that picture of all the parts of the W&W No. 9 neatly laid was great.
I just keep trying to make sense of this Singer 9W serial number situation, and haven't yet, except to agree with Langdon that the prefix-less seven digit ones are older than the "W" prefix ones.
The reason I arrived at that opinion (before I stumbled on Langdon's opinion) is that there was an evolution from the W&W D9 (which Singer rechristened the 9w1) to the Singer 9w7.
There was the movement of the thread spool from the middle of the horizontal arm to the balance wheel end, and the change in the dimensions of the machine bed to make the 9w fit Singer cabinets, but the one item that 9w owners mentioned fairly consistently was the shape of the bobbin.
The prefix-less seven digit serial number 9w machines mostly seem to have the "donut" shaped bobbins like their W&W D9 ancestor.
However, the "W" prefix serial number 9w machines seem mostly to have the flat bobbins that are compatible with other Singer models.
Singer was taking some of the better features of W&W machines, and incorporating them into their own existing models, but they were also gradually modifying the popular W&W D9 to bring it into line with their other machines.
Why have a good machine that needs a special bobbin when it can be modified to accept a more standard one, not to mention fit into existing Singer cabinets?
Thanks again. I have both bobbins so I guess I'll see which one fits. I think I've looked at too many articles. What type of needle do you think I should use? 127 x 1 or 15 x 1?
BKooi, You're welcome. :-)
I don't seem to have reached article fatigue myself yet, as I keep looking at W&W/Singer stuff. Must be my newest obsession.
Given the serial number on your machine, I'd be surprised if it took the donut-style bobbin. However, hold onto it if you have one of the donut style, because they're like hen's teeth. You could get into a trade with other Singer 9W/W&W D9 owners.
Unless your machine has been modified, it should take a 127x1 needle, per everything I've seen, including ISMACS:
(scroll down)
http://ismacs.net/singer_sewing_machine_company/model-list/classes-1-99.html
Those seem to be in short supply, but apparently there are substitutes. I'll follow up with more information later, but I'm out of time at the moment.
Back to the subject of needles for your 9W:
The preferred variety is the Singer 127x1. Here are the main specifications (the CW S&S software may reformat this in a bad way, in which case, you'll need to go to the link):
*snip*
Needle Cross Reference Chart for Flat Shank Needles
Scarf Shank diameter mm Length to top of eye mm Length to point mm
N[o] 1.75 38.9 43.9
*snip*
http://ismacs.net/needle_and_shank/needle-cross-reference-chart-flat-shank.html
This outfit has exactly one in stock:
http://www.discountsewingmachineparts.com/vintage-parts/needles-4391/needle-127x1-one-needle-only.html
This one has four:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Boye-Wheeler-Wilson-D9-W9-Sewing-Machine-Needles-127x1-/324374155671
Supposedly, the MY1014 needle works as a replacement, but this quiltingboard user had trouble with the MY1014, and ended up going back to a Singer 127x1. It needs to be said that they were quilting (it is, after all, a quilting forum):
https://www.quiltingboard.com/vintage-antique-machine-enthusiasts-f22/here-needle-question-ive-been-mulling-over-bit-t247319.html
Yep, the CW S&T software made it all but unintelligible.
All right, let's try it this way:
Needle Cross Reference Chart for Flat Shank Needles
Scarf: NO
Shank diameter in mm: 1.75
Length to top of eye in mm: 38.9
Length to point in mm: 43.9
Here's another vendor that has 10 (size 12):
https://www.ebay.com/itm/10-Wheeler-Wilson-8-9-D9-W9-Substitute-Sewing-Machine-Needle-Sz-12-127x1-/224212326039
Thank you!
BKooi, You're welcome. :-)
It looks like two of those listings have already sold. >8-0
Here is more information and advice on sewing machine needles:
http://ismacs.net/needle_and_shank/home.html
Also, some information on a Singer 9w that had been modified to use a 15x1 needle:
https://www.quiltingboard.com/vintage-antique-machine-enthusiasts-f22/singer-9w-7-needle-modifications-t196662.html
More advice:
https://www.quiltingboard.com/7058873-post17.html
Perfect!
BKooi, I did wonder whether you wanted to go that route, considering the scarcity of 127x1 needles in general, not to mention the difficulty in getting a variety of needle gauges for different fabrics/projects.
Whatever you decide to do, good luck. :-)
It looks like I need the old style bobbins.
BKooi, I'm sorry to read that. :-(
I really expected due to the serial number that it would use the more standard flat-sided bobbins, not merely because the flat-sided bobbins hold more thread, but because those donut-style bobbins are rare and expensive, e.g.:
https://www.etsy.com/listing/829339349/antique-wheeler-wilson-9-sewing-machine
I took a look to see whether anybody had been able to modify a W&W D9/Singer 9W that used the donut bobbins to use flat bobbins, and apparently it's possible but not necessarily easy. To see the pictures on this one, you'd need to join the group:
https://groups.io/g/Wheeler_and_Wilson-Sewing-Machines/message/876
That's okay. I was able to find several 127 x 1 needles and found some bobbins.
Welp, as long as this has been dredged back up to the front page by some opportunistic advertiser (their impertinent comment got deleted by CW staff), I might as well summarize this Singer mystery machine saga.
This is a Singer model 9W7 of 1905-1913 vintage:
https://www.singersewinginfo.co.uk/9w
I'm afraid that I have to disagree with the singersewinginfo write-up with regard to the serial number sequencing. On that subject, I agree with John Langdon of the International Sewing Machine Collectors' Society.
That is, I think that Singer probably used some of the Wheeler & Wilson no prefix serial numbers initially, but later they 'reset' the serial number counter, and applied a "W" prefix:
*snip*
Singer was great about keeping records (mostly) and, even with the 'missing' information for some of its earlier models, it puts the other manufacturers to shame. W&W were not so good. Then, of course, Singer renumbered Bridgeport machines and effectively went back to 0 but with a 'W' in front.
So, there is a huge grey area around the D–9 and 9w. No-one really knows just when (in the sequence of serial numbers) Singer took over.
*snip*
https://www.quiltingboard.com/vintage-antique-machine-enthusiasts-f22/wheeler-wilson9-singer-9w-serials-t186338.html
It just makes more sense to me that, just as Singer initially used leftover Wheeler & Wilson sewing machine parts, they probably also initially used leftover Wheeler & Wilson serial numbers.
Later, as they brought the sewing machine head into compliance with Singer norms (e.g., modifying the sewing machine bed dimensions so that it would fit into Singer cabinets), they discontinued the Wheeler & Wilson no prefix serial numbers, and starting using "W" prefix Singer serial numbers.
It IS confusing, unfortunately.
Somebody needs to enlighten that eBay vendor who's still listing their cannibalized Singer 9W7 (serial number 3202398) as being of 1879 vintage, probably because they were mistakenly using Singer's no-prefix serial number table to date what is actually a legacy Wheeler & Wilson serial number:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/1879-Singer-Sewing-Machine-Model-9W7-Choose-Your-Parts-Free-Ship-Over-25-/153346799235
Hmmm, maybe "somebody" should be me. };-)